8 ms·

How about: If you don't want your kids to see it, that's on you. Either accept that you are a shitty parent who can't raise children to your satisfaction, or ge

• Brendinooo 3y ago
  We don't apply this principle to something like peanut allergies. "If your kid touches a peanut, that's on you as a parent"? No, people recognized that peanuts are harmful enough to a certain segment of the population that it's worth making changes, even changes that might inconvenience others. Besides, I'm not sure why you think that parents are able to be 100% in control of things that their children see/eat/etc. Should we legalize nudity on billboards, and would your suggestion then be to "simply drive on different roads"?
  • scarface74 3y ago
    Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed.
    • Brendinooo 3y ago
      There's plenty of room between "unrestricted" and "stopped". You're not arguing that "laws don't actually do anything", right?
    • George83728 3y ago
      Laws against murder haven't stopped murder, so I guess those laws are useless. Gun control laws? Japan's ex-PM got blown away by a wacko with a homemade shotgun, so I guess gun control laws just don't work. Nevermind the rate of gun violence in Japan.. it's all or nothing.
      • monetus 3y ago
        This doesn't directly add to or take from your point, because obviously laws have a purpose - that assassin was motivated by an extreme religious affiliation to the lawmakers. There is irony here.
        • George83728 3y ago
          I'm not seeing the irony, unless you believe that opposition to pornography being available to kids must necessarily have a religious motive. I oppose it, and I am an atheist.
          • monetus 3y ago
            It doesn't have to for anyone, but does in this instance as the lawmakers in question are motivated by their affiliation with a religion.
    • yamtaddle 3y ago
      "These are very effective but not perfectly effective" is the lamest possible "gotcha!" in these kinds of discussions.
      • scarface74 3y ago
        https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/health-effects/teens.html > In 2019, 37% of US high school students reported lifetime use of marijuana and 22% reported use in the past 30 days.1 Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. However, large percentages of middle and high school students reported past-year marijuana vaping—8% of eighth graders, 19% of 10th graders, and 22% of 12th graders.
        • yamtaddle 3y ago
          I remember those surveys. I did so much meth.
          • scarface74 3y ago
            You really don’t think a lot of teenagers are smoking weed?
            • yamtaddle 3y ago
              > Yes and forcing people to show ID has really stopped underaged drinking and making drugs illegal have stopped people from smoking weed. > Past-year vaping of marijuana also remained steady in 2020 following large increases in 2018 and 2019. I've got a guess about why the number might be rising, and it rhymes with "egalization", in which case, yes, making drugs illegal reduced use of drugs. I guarantee fewer people in general, including fewer kids, smoked when it was illegal, and less was consumed overall. I'd further bet there's a lot less pot consumption by kids now, than there would be if dispensaries didn't verify age. But I also suspect it's just kinda hard to get clean data about teen drug use. I'd also guess the real figures are extremely uneven (that "8% of eighth graders", if accurate, probably means 20% some places and 2% in others) and high use correlates to places where it's easy to get, which supports the notion that carding or outlawing should reduce use (since they make it harder to get). (Nb. I'm pro-legalization, I just think carding and outlawing almost certainly strongly curb use, though of course they don't stop it completely, and I think "this wasn't perfectly effective, so it's necessarily useless" isn't a strong point in most situations)
  • evandale 3y ago
    The consequence of exposing a kid with a peanut allergy to a peanut can be death. Watching hardcore porn won't kill a kid.
    • Brendinooo 3y ago
      It will harm a kid, and asking a website to figure out how to verify an age is far less burdensome than taking PB&Js out of kid lunches.
      • sophacles 3y ago
        [flagged]
        • Brendinooo 3y ago
          “Sky wizard” is a bright red flag for a bad-faith argument, so I’m not going to do a bunch of research for you. Search around for voices of people who have struggled with porn addiction. If you think it’s a purely religious thing, you’re mistaken.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
          • vidarh 3y ago
            Having followed this space for ~30+ years, I've yet to see any research that shows more than marginal and subjective effects at any kind of scale. Including in meta-studies. Sure, some people can struggle with addiction to porn, just as they can to chocolate and almost anything else. We don't respond with age verification to the vast majority of those other things. Since I haven't brought up "sky wizard", perhaps if you have any actual evidence of harm you might show me?
        • deleted 3y ago
          [deleted]
      • cmh89 3y ago
  • YellOh 3y ago
    What does society do to solve the peanut problem? Outside of schools, it seems totally on the parent to stop the kid from eating peanuts. The parent does the grocery shopping, asks the right questions when taking the kid to a restaurant, and lets friends/other caregivers know not to give peanuts to the child. People do "make changes" for specific allergies & food restrictions by making the information available & creating some allergen-free zones (just like adult content is currently kept out of schools and family-friendly locations, and there are adult-content warnings most times) but peanut access is absolutely currently up to the parent, in general. I'm not even sure what the billboard thing is getting at. We shouldn't have nudity on billboards (except female breasts in nonsexual contexts), just like we shouldn't keep peanuts where we know anyone allergic has to be. Counter-hypothetical: it would be incredibly stupid to lock up peanut butter because kids might take a $5 bill to the store and buy the clearly-labelled jar.
    • yamtaddle 3y ago
      > What does society do to solve the peanut problem? We mandate labeling. We could not do that and just say "parents, you must run a peanut-detection lab or have extremely restricted diets of only food you make yourself, to keep your kids safe", but we don't.
      • YellOh 3y ago
        I have no issue with labelling requirements for large commercial operations. To be honest I thought we already had that for adult content, given the specific TV/radio limits and the "confirm you're 18" popups so popular on the web. I realize I'm beating a dead analogy here, but I don't think we should impose those labelling restrictions on independent hobbyist websites, just like we don't require licensing or ingredient labelling for small bake sales. But even if we did, "label obviously-adult content" would be way more reasonable than "collect personal information to verify the real-life identity of site visitors, and log this sensitive data so it can be accessed (/hacked) later"
  • pjlegato 3y ago
    Writing "produced on equipment that also processes peanuts" on a food label is hardly inconveniencing others. It's still very much on the parents to prevent harm to their peanut-allergic children. As an aside, the sharp rise in nut allergies is itself an unintended consequence of another well-meaning attempt at social engineering: about 30 years ago, manufacturers began printing "CHOKING HAZARD: DO NOT FEED NUTS TO CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD" on nut labels. Many parents complied, and that lack of any early exposure to nut proteins resulted in a massive increase in life-threatening nut allergies among children.
    • Brendinooo 3y ago
      Do you have kids in school? Our kids aren’t allowed to pack peanuts in their lunches because parents can’t put an allergic kid in a cafeteria otherwise.
• nathan_compton 3y ago
  I'm against forcing people to provide their ID in order to see pornography. Indeed, I am, if anything, supportive of adults being able to understand and fully experience their erotic lives, as long as no one is harmed, and to do so anonymously where possible. But your attitude is, in a historical context, weird. At basically no point in history has it been the case that the sole responsibility for the well being of children lay entirely with the parents. If you look, for instance, at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see the Parenthood article section Parental Responsibilities), you will see, for instance, that throughout most of western history and for most people, there is an explicit or implicit understanding that it is, in fact, the parents who operate as stewards of children _on behalf of_ society and that the ultimate locus of responsibility for the security and well being of children is the society at large, not the parents. This is why, for instance, the state is typically understood to have the right to remove a child from the home of an abusive or neglectful parent. Given that understanding, there is a commensurate power in society to make rules which may protect children and in our particular historical moment these rules take the form of laws at multiple levels of government. It places a powerful (and disordered) burden on parents to make them _exclusively_ responsible for the safety and wellbeing of their children.
  • scarface74 3y ago
    I have no desire for “society” to make rules that govern my kids. Especially seeing that between gerrymandering, the electoral college and the fact that each state no matter what the size has two senators means that people who would love to impose their religious beliefs on others have an outsized influence on laws that are passed.
    • nathan_compton 3y ago
      You may not have any such desire but imagine if you died and your kid was adopted by an abusive person you _would_ want the state to intervene. I'm as unsatisfied as you are about the current political situation in the United States, but the solution isn't to just demand the government withdraw. It is to actually engage _more_ politically and with an understanding of what the true responsibilities of the state are. The state will _inevitably exercise power_. Only a vigilant citizenry can hope to modulate it.
• bcrosby95 3y ago
  What do you think of helicopter parenting? What about the "free range" movement? What's the proper balance of freedom and privacy for kids?
  • sophacles 3y ago
    I was a free range kid (we just called it "being a kid" though). I feel bad for the kids of helicopter parents - the parent is hiding them from the world and blocking them from learning about the world as it exists and from discovering how they can/will interact with it. Then one day they cross a threshold of "number of days alive" and are expected to know how to live in the world they haven't ever been exposed to. Sounds like a derange science experiment carried out by insane control freaks more than parenting.
    • bcrosby95 3y ago
      I agree. But if you aren't going to be a helicopter parent there needs to be some safety valves for when kids go too far off the rails. Calling a parent shitty because their kid does something they would prefer they didn't means we've all had shitty parents. Kids are individuals that gain preferences the minute they gain any sort of mobility and trying to reign everything in will backfire. I don't have strong opinions on this particular topic. I don't think porn is quite so damaging as others to the point where society needs to protect them. But the rational response to the views you expressed seems to contradict your actual views on the subject of how parents should raise their kids.
      • sophacles 3y ago
        > Calling a parent shitty because their kid does something they would prefer they didn't means we've all had shitty parents. Kids are going to do things their parents don't like. It's literally part of the kid learning about the world and themselves. It's shitty parenting to not know how to deal with this rather than trying to pass laws so that they can pretend the kid is just a miniature clone of their worldview.
• throwaw12 3y ago
  How about: dissolving all labor unions, schools and governments? You do parenting and education yourself, protect yourself and your kids from any kind of harm outside. If you can't do it, just admit you are incompetent and don't force consequences of paying taxes on me
  • biftek 3y ago
    what point are you actually trying to make? just because schools and the "government" exist doesn't free you from educating or taking care of your kid outside of those contexts. learn to be a parent
    • NeutralCrane 3y ago
      I believe they are facetiously pointing out the logical fallacy the original commenter was making by claiming that the law unjustly punished everybody to protect poor parents. But that same logical stretch could apply to any and all laws, thereby making all laws unjust in the same way. While that line of thinking may appeal to a anarchic-libertarian extremist minority, the overwhelming majority of people see this as stupid.
  • pclmulqdq 3y ago
    Sounds good to me, honestly. Or rather better than a system where moral busybodies seem to think they can get me to attach my name to porn consumption.
• kgwgk 3y ago
  Does that apply to all the “bad” things that someone else could do to a child?
• defen 3y ago
  Are you a parent?
• jdswain 3y ago
  As a parent myself, I'd like to say that it's not that easy. There are measures you can take, but it doesn't always work. The web is maybe easy to control, but what about all the other means of communication kids have now, like in-game social tools? In the end that comes down to do you ban everything that could cause an issue, and then you are isolating your child from their friends. Even if that issue is solved, I've heard stories of kids 'forcing' other kids to watch porn on phones at school. How do you prevent that one? Most often the other parents are unaware, don't care, or even provide the porn.
• friend_and_foe 3y ago
  "If you don't want your kids buying cigarettes that's on you." If we want to live in an environment where children have any degree of autonomy, that means delegating some aspects related to restricting age appropriate behaviors to the state. Now, I'm not a fan of government mandated age restriction on websites, but your point is obviously not well thought out.